LADWP letter heats up ‘Talking Water Workshop’

Less than 24 hours before the Inyo County Board of Supervisors “Talking Water Workshop” Tuesday, ranchers were sent an e-mail from the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power advising them their irrigation water would be curtailed Friday, May 1, just one month into the six-month irrigation season.

The workshop was requested to find a solution to drastically reduced irrigation water available for valley agriculture by negotiating down mandated allotments. LADWP’s Annual Owens Valley Operations Plan indicated irrigation would be reduced from a typical 49,000 acre-feet to 16,500 for the 2015-16 run-off year. The letter cut that number for some farming operations to zero as of Friday.

Prior to the workshop, the Board reacted quickly with a letter to Board of Water and Power Commissioners President Mel Levine and LADWP General Manager Marcie Edwards pointing out “clear violations” of the Long Term Water Agreement.

“Last November, the County recognized the potential that the drought could extend into a fourth year and, by letter, requested LADWP meet with the County to discuss possible water supply reductions in the Owens Valley,” The County’s letter states. “LADWP did not meet to discuss such reductions and did not respond to the County’s letter.”

Some farms were exempt from the cut-off: wet leases in the Bishop Cone, thanks to the Hillside Decree requiring LADWP to use on the Cone water quantities equal to that extracted from the Cone. Agriculture designated as Enhancement Mitigation projects were also exempt.

Any sympathy LADWP could have had as an equal sharer in the pain – the plan also called for no water exports to the city until mid-fall – was erased by the letter and its timing.

But, there is hope.

Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District Officer Phillip Kiddoo told the Supervisors there could be water savings on the Owens Lake in time to supplement irrigation allotments. “We can look at drying down early,” he said. LADWP is required by law to reduce dust on the lake; Kiddoo pointed out that his district is required to slap the department with a $10,000 a day fine if they don’t.

“They’re in compliance now,” Kiddoo said. “The next satellite fly-over is May 3 and I expect them to still be in compliance.” LADWP’s operation plan estimated 60,700 acre-feet on the lake, up from 53,700 acre-feet last run-off year.

Los Angeles and Great Basin signed an agreement that would both meet the dust mitigation requirements and require half the water currently being used in shallow flooding. But full implementation of the agreement will take time.

Around the fourth hour of the five-and-a-half hour meeting, Former District 1 Supervisor Linda Arcularius suggested the County send a letter to the State Lands Commission, the official owner of the lake and the only stakeholder not represented at the session, asking for an authorization to allow LADWP and Great Basin to work together to reduce water in the face of the severe drought conditions.

Board Chairman Matt Kingsley directed staff to write the letter, requesting a potential 20,000 to 25,000 acre-feet savings. He also directed staff to encourage the Memorandum of Understanding partners to meet and discuss options for water savings on the Lower Owens River Project, estimated to use 15,300 acre-feet, up from 14,300 last year.

The savings on the Lower Owens could come in the form of reduced base flow from the mandated 40 cubic feet per second, though LADWP staffer Eric Tillemans estimated that the savings could only be 1,000 acre-feet.

Early in the meeting, Yannotta was cautioned by LADWP attorney to not discuss the letter. By the end of the meeting, Yannotta did confirm that “if there is relief (from water obligations) in May, we can continue irrigation.” Yannotta added that over the next two days, he would talk to his staff and the process could move forward.

A packed crowd of ranchers and mitigation project advocates came armed with numbers. “I’m not convinced the water isn’t there,” said Sally Manning pointing out a discrepancy between the anticipated 276,000 acre-feet of run off and the 124,400 (plus 41,000 acre-feet slated for export starting in November). Yannotta explained the balance, roughly 110,000 acre-feet, would be used on private lands or lost to aquifer recharge and evaporation/transpiration (conveyance losses).

Mike Prather expressed his concern for wildlife values on the Owens Lake. Andrew Warren told the Board “LA is using this drought to pull water off the lake.” Earl Wilson posed the analogy that “if we controlled power sources to Los Angeles and we told them we were cutting off power to their manufacturing base – that they can keep tourists and home owners. What do you think they’d say?”

Cattleman Scott Kemp suggested 20-percent cuts to the LORP and Owens Lake and a 30-percent cut for irrigation. “We know everybody’s taking a cut,” said rancher Gary Giacomini, “we just want it to be equitable. We’re all neighbors.”

Zack Smith, with 1,500 acres of alfalfa fields and native meadow between Big Pine and Independence and Shepherd Creek, said “we’re not asking for more than our share. We don’t export our hay to China (a dig on Central Valley water-hungry pistachio and almond farmers). Our hay is sold locally. Our only export is to a California dairy.” Smith pointed out the advantage of green areas agriculture provides in the valley. Without irrigation water, “the dust will continue to flow,” he said, “not from the lake but from dried up fields…. A week after May 1, our crop will be dead and we’ll get nothing next year.”

Inyo/Mono County Agriculture Commissioner Nate Reade put it all in perspective with a diagram showing the economic impact of reductions in irrigation: the $19.8 million dollars in ag production dependent on irrigation in Owens Valley could realize a $13 million loss in one year. In addition, Reade’s calculations indicated a loss of 100 jobs directly related to agriculture and a loss of 14,500 acres of irrigated land with an unknown cost to wildlife habitat, watershed health, fire danger and dust emissions.

The meeting heated up as the hours ticked off. Supervisor Mark Tillemans asked what happened to the early runoff from an unseasonally warm winter.

“The runoff went to Haiwee reservoir prior to April 1,” Yannotta answered. Supervisor Jeff Griffiths asked why LADWP didn’t ask for an early ramp down on the Owens Lake. “We didn’t know it would be this bad,” Yannotta said, explaining that the May 1 irrigation cut-off date was put into play when the department realized it may not be able to meet its mandated water obligations through the summer.

“You’re pitting one group against another,” Griffiths said. “We can’t destroy ag in this county.”

About News Staff

We work to provide daily news to all of the Eastern Sierra, in the tradition of Eastern Sierra News Service and the Sierra Wave. We bring you daily happenings, local politics, crime, government dealings and fun stuff. Please contact us.

15 Responses to LADWP letter heats up ‘Talking Water Workshop’

Ms. Arcularious was at the meeting as a concerned citizen about the water issues in the Owens Valley. Her ideas were some ot the most forward thinking presented at the meeting. Contact the state and ask for some solutions as the Governor has proclaimed that counties/cities must have a 20% water reduction this year. I don’t know or care who you are but I would only hope that you are in attendance at future meetings so you can see for yourself what is happening instead of making assumptions.

Ms. Arcularius’ suggestion is ill-informed. Neither the State Lands Commission (State of Calif.) nor the Great Basin APCD can provide relief from federal air quality requirements. Only the USEPA could do so. If Great Basin provides illegal relief from the requirement to control Owens Lake dust, it will be subject to and will almost certainly lose a lawsuit that can be brought by any citizen. Be careful Mr. Kiddoo.

Again I ask, “Why are WE cutting water usage, letting our landscaping die, curtailing showering and other household uses, when LADWP water users LA aren’t?” Money may or may not buy water (from No. CA sources), but I say, “Slap them with the $10,000/day fine”. We in the Owens Valley may just need that money, for water purchases. LADWP didn’t bother to respond to last November’s invitation to meet to discuss water/drought issues. Obviously, they don’t care, and we do!

We as a people can not stand for killing off Owens Valley so other people in the city can water lawns and fill pools.

This year should be the year of removing all non native plants from the city’s that use water to falsely make their yards look like anything other than the desert. If you don’t wan’t to live in the desert move.

LA was given a resource, they continually show they are not responsible. It is like you are headed for a crash and your response is to cut the break lines and gas it.

After sitting at least 5 hours through this “water talk”, it took me till yesterday to finally digest what is going on and how I feel about it….
and you know what I think? ” How dare LADWP try to get us to be cut-throat towards each-other!” we must respect all the hard days, nights and years of fighting to get water back on the River, Lake’s, etc..
What I still don’t understand, is all of these outdated practices we still see with how people are using water… We all need to wake up a bit more….
I know I refuse to tell my little ones that they are going to have to clean up the mess WE and this #ConsumerCulture is leaving behind, which means we all need to step out of our comfort zones a little more…

Lets hope these water talks continue..

and another thing that I can’t dismiss, the local ranchers were fighting for the Owens Valley economic benefit and their own economic benefit… but yet the tribes still lack the ability to have the same economic benefit through the ownership or right of water that hits the reservation… Consider that! Consider stepping up to help the tribes and their ability to give economic benefit to the valley! Maybe the ranchers can understand the strangle hold LADWP still has on TRIBES ability to have economic benefit/Environmental benefit!

Is there enough runoff coming off of the Eastern Sierra to provide enough water for all the requirements in the Mono Basin, Bishop Cone, Owens Valley, and Owens Lake? If LADWP did provide irrigation water wouldn’t they violate legal commitments on the LORP and the Owens Dry Lake? They are kind of damned either way right? On the driest year on record how can LADWP meet the endless list of commitments that may or may not have a clause for very low runoff? Interested to hear people’s ideas

That’s pretty cute Phillis. Although experience has left the lesson that you can’t ever win a debate with a woman I would offer the idea that perhaps LADWP damns itself when they violate a binding legal document that they chose to agree with in the first place. There is a process within the LTWA to address the decisions of the issues of irrigation water in the Owens Valley with Inyo County with whom they have signed the LTWA. As a responsible Entity that relies on their Customers and Public for voluntary compliance to much of their Operations and Infrastructure they should be setting an appropriate example of following rules and regulations. For the DWP to engage in the manipulation of getting us to be “cut-throat towards each other”, as Jeramiah so correctly puts it, is so wrong and morally reprehensible .

Cities were built in places with no water of their own on nothing but a pipe dream called the LA aqueduct which sadly has become in reality a terrible nightmare. A reality that we all will have to wake up too and deal with. =

well what do ya know? The ranchers are not getting cut off after all. Just as i thought, another trick. I can not help but think they are lying to us about the water all together. Even if we are in a drought, there is no way we are worse off than in the seventies. Since then toilets, faucets, etc. have all been made to conserve water. Our resivoirs are full. I am not sure why they are lying to us, but i am pretty sure they are.

allen….Agree with you 100 % here.Like I’ve thought all along.Sure,no rain = water shortage,but not to the point that the ranchers can’t supply the multi millionaires with the food they need.The poor ain’t gonna suffer with this drought.Neither are the rich.The ones that will suffer are the ones that work the 9 to 5 jobs and making enough to live,maybe put a little bit in the bank,if they do without a few things here and there.THEY will be the ones that get the bigger water bills, price increases in other things due to the drought,and if they issue water restriction fines,THEY will be the ones that get the fines.